The Federal Audit Court admitted an exception to the 25% limit for contractual changes, but it does not fit into any amendment. Judgment 1,753/2026 — Plenary requires that the change above the limit be consensual, necessary for the completion of the original object and supported by a written and unequivocal demonstration of its technical, economic and social viability.
The decision was taken by the Plenary on July 1, 2026, in process TC 026.259/2024-9, under the report of Minister Augusto Nardes. The institutional disclosure took place on July 15, 2026. The consultation originally dealt with construction supervision and management contracts, but the thesis formulated by the Court reaches, in general terms, the limits applicable to contractual changes governed by Law 14,133/2021.
The practical reading is this: 25% remains the rule; exceeding the limit is an exceptional solution, conditioned and subject to a high burden of justification.
What the TCU decided about the 25% limit
Art. 125 of Law 14,133/2021 establishes that, in unilateral changes, the contractor must accept additions or deletions of up to 25% of the updated initial value of the contract. In the specific case of renovation of a building or equipment, the legal limit for increases is 50%.
The debate brought to the TCU arose because the provision expressly mentions unilateral changes. The question was therefore whether a change made by agreement between the Administration and the contractor could freely exceed these percentages.
The Plenary responded no.
According to item 9.2.1 of Ruling 1,753/2026, both quantitative and qualitative changes, whether unilateral or consensual, are subject, as a rule, to the limits of art. 125. The interpretation must be combined with the principles of art. 5th, the prohibition of transfiguration of the object and, in engineering works and services, the preservation of the discount originally obtained by the Administration.
A quantitative change modifies the dimension or quantities of the object. The qualitative change preserves the nature and essential dimension of the object, but modifies the project, specifications or technical solution to adapt it to the contracting objectives. The classification chosen by the manager, in itself, does not remove the limit.
Before the exception: check the applicable limit
Not every increase greater than 25% depends on the exception recognized by the TCU.
In renovations of buildings or equipment, the art itself. 125 allows increases of up to 50% of the updated initial value. Therefore, a 30% increase in a renovation that actually fits this hypothesis may be within the ordinary legal limit.
This special rule only applies to additions. Suppressions remain subject to the 25% limit when imposed unilaterally by the Administration.
It is also not enough to call the hiring a “reform”. The framework must effectively correspond to the contracted object and be technically documented.
Decision tree for additive above 25%
1. Is the change within the applicable limit?
Calculate the percentage of the updated initial value of the contract, considering the relevant object or award unit.
- General rule: up to 25% for additions or deletions.
- Renovation of building or equipment: up to 50% for additions.
- Above applicable limit: proceed to exceptional analysis.
The TCU Tenders and Contracts manual warns that the calculation basis may vary depending on whether the award occurred by item, lot or global value. Nor should increases in certain items be artificially compensated with deletions in others to hide the limit being exceeded.
2. Will the change above the limit be consensual?
If the answer is no, the exception in Ruling 1,753/2026 does not apply.
Item 9.2.2 expressly restricts the possibility to consensual contractual changes. The Administration cannot unilaterally impose on the contractor the extrapolation of legal percentages based on this understanding.
The contractor's agreement, however, is only the first condition. It does not automatically transform additive into regular.
3. Is the measure necessary for the complete execution of the original object?
The manager must demonstrate that the change is essential to complete and make the object originally bid available.
If the proposal adds a new purpose, creates a stand-alone solution, or transforms the nature and purpose of the contract, the appropriate path tends to be a new contract, not an addition.
Law 14,133 prohibits the transfiguration of the object. The TCU also states that this prohibition cannot be circumvented even by agreement between the parties.
4. Have the three viabilities been demonstrated in writing?
The Judgment requires written and unequivocal demonstration of technical, economic and social feasibility. The three dimensions must be present; generic administrative convenience is not enough.
5. Does the process preserve prices, discount and balance?
In engineering works and services, the amendment cannot reduce, in favor of the contractor, the percentage difference between the global contracted value and the reference budget. In other words, changing the spreadsheet cannot eliminate the discount obtained in the bidding.
The effects on the economic-financial balance, budget availability, schedule and contractual guarantees must also be analyzed.
6. Has the additive been formally instructed and approved?
Justifications must be included in the administrative process. As a rule, the additive term depends on prior legality control, written formalization and disclosure on the official website and on the National Public Procurement Portal.
The execution of the changed provision must occur after formalization. The anticipation of effects is exceptional, needs to be formally justified and requires the completion of the additive within a maximum period of one month.
Only after a positive response to all these steps can the Administration consider applying the exception.
The cumulative conditions of Judgment 1,753/2026
Consensual change
Extrapolation depends on agreement between Administration and contractor. Consent must be documented and cannot be the result of disguised unilateral imposition.
Need to complete the original object
The amendment must serve the complete execution of the object that was tendered, without including a materially different contract.
It is necessary to relate each service, quantity or solution added to the originally predicted result, demonstrating why its absence would prevent or compromise the functional completion of the object.
Technical feasibility
Technical analysis must prove that:
- the contractor maintains the conditions and guarantees of his proposal;
- has the technical capacity to execute the changed scope;
- maintains compatible economic and financial capacity;
- the proposed solution is executable and integrated into the original object;
- the amendment does not transform the contract.
These conclusions should not only appear in the contractor's declaration. They need to be evaluated by the technical sectors responsible for hiring and supervision.
Economic viability
The Administration must compare the continuity of the contract with the alternative of terminating it and carrying out a new contract.
The calculation must consider, as appropriate:
- extinction charges;
- administrative and technical costs of a new tender;
- mobilization and demobilization;
- maintenance, conservation and surveillance of the object during the break;
- risks of deterioration or loss of services already performed;
- deadline required to complete the new contract;
- prices and economic conditions of the proposed solution.
The Ruling requires that continuity be less costly than termination plus the costs of a new tender and maintenance and surveillance expenses during the transition period, when applicable.
Social viability
The social justification must demonstrate how continuity will anticipate the benefits and enjoyment of the contracted object.
It is not enough to state that the hiring serves the public interest. It is necessary to concretely identify:
- which users or services will benefit;
- which deliveries will be anticipated;
- what social losses would result from the interruption;
- how much time would a new hire add to the schedule;
- which impacts can be avoided with continuity.
Social viability does not replace economic or technical viability. It is an additional dimension of grounding.
Documents to inform the decision
The Judgment does not present a closed index of documents. The dossier below translates your requirements and combines them with the general rules for formalizing additives. The list must be adapted to the regulations and flows of each body.
| Document or record | What you should demonstrate |
|---|---|
| Note framing the amendment | Hypothesis of art. 124, quantitative or qualitative nature, consensual character and accumulated percentage |
| Calculation memory | Updated initial value, tax base, previous additions and deletions and resulting percentage |
| Technical report | Need for change, link with the original object, proposed solution and absence of transfiguration |
| Expression from the inspector and manager | Execution status, measurements, risks, impacts on the schedule and measures already adopted |
| Contractor's formal consent | Agreement with the change, prices, deadlines, obligations and execution conditions |
| Proof of capacity | Maintenance of proposal conditions, guarantees, technical and economic-financial capacity |
| Comparative economic study | Continuity of contract versus termination, new bidding and transition costs |
| Price evaluation and discount | Price compatibility and discount preservation, especially in engineering |
| Social justification | Anticipated benefits, users achieved, and consequences of disruption |
| Schedule updated | Steps, deadlines, disbursements, delivery milestones and effects of the amendment |
| Budget availability | Required resources and compatibility with financial planning |
| Risk matrix analysis | Responsibility for the events that gave rise to the change and economic effects |
| Investigation of project failures | Responsible parties, reimbursement arrangements and preventive measures, when applicable |
| Legal opinion | Legality control, except in the event of exemption previously authorized by the competent legal authority |
| Decision of the competent authority | Individualized motivation and express approval of the exceptional solution |
| Additive term and publications | Written formalization, attached to the files, official disclosure and publication in the PNCP |
The TCU advises that changes be preceded by an administrative procedure with specific justifications, opinions and technical studies, generic grounds being prohibited. The AGU also provides models and a checklist for additives governed by Law 14,133.
The ruling does not authorize
Ruling 1,753/2026 does not authorize:
- exceed 25% just because the contractor agreed;
- unilaterally impose an increase above the limit;
- create a new object through successive additions;
- use generic justifications of urgency, convenience or public interest;
- dispensing with the economic comparison with extinction and a new tender;
- consider only technical feasibility sufficient;
- eliminate the discount obtained when bidding for engineering works or services;
- informally perform additional services and regularize the process later;
- ignore planning or design flaws that must be investigated;
- treat the lack of a new percentage ceiling as authorization for unlimited additives.
The decision did not create a free range above 25%. It created an exceptional possibility bounded by the original object, consensus and a rigorous set of evidence.
Does understanding automatically apply to any contract?
The response was given during the consultation process. According to the TCU itself, responses of this nature have a normative character and constitute a prejudgment of the thesis, but do not decide in advance a specific fact or case.
This means that the understanding guides the interpretation adopted by the Court, but does not dispense with the individual analysis of the contract, its legal regime, the risk matrix, the cause of the change, the applicable regulations and the powers of the body.
Law 14,133 contains general rules applicable to public administrations in the Union, states, Federal District and municipalities. Still, state and municipal bodies must also consider local regulations and the jurisprudence of the competent audit court, especially before using a recent exception with high legal risk.
How the manager should act when faced with a possible extrapolation
The first step is not to write the additive term. It is testing whether there is an alternative within the contract, whether the object remains the same and whether the new contract would be technically and economically viable.
Next, the team must produce technical, economic and social analyzes independently, with verifiable data, calculation memories and supporting documents. The conclusion cannot be constructed just to justify a decision already made.
Finally, the competent authority must expressly evaluate the alternatives, risks, preservation of competition and effects on the public interest. The higher the percentage and the more significant the change, the greater the depth of the justification.
Save this flowchart for instructions on upcoming additions and also consult the content on how to search the entire content, vote and statements of TCU rulings.
